L. Neil Smith'sTHE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 273, May 30, 2004"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the
ones you want to concentrate on."President George W. Bush, speaking at a Gridiron Club dinner,
Washington, D.C., March 2001

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To
ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500
words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail
address as you wish them to appear.]

... will include a raffle to raise money for the FSP. Included in
this raffle are prizes donated by FSP Vice President
Alan R. Weiss
that are exciting to L. Neil Smith fans!

(1) book, Hope, signed by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman. "Hope"
has become one of the most popular books amongst FSP literati, and
has been read by Libertarian Party candidates Michael Badnarik and
Aaron Russo.

(1) book, The American Zone, signed by L. Neil Smith. The perfect
follow-up to Smith's seminal and wildly-popular The Probability
Broach, The American Zone hardback book will take readers on
another science-fiction/mystery sure to thrill, painting a picture
of a liberty-loving futureand the alternative.

(1) DVD video, Innocents Betrayed, signed by Producer Aaron
Zelman. A hard-hitting documentary defining the 20th Century's mass
murders as being directly related to "gun control" (otherwise known
as victim disarmament), this DVD explains the various and brutal
genocides and Holocausts at the hands of statists of both the left
and the right.

Come join us in New Hampshire in gorgeous Lancaster, just a short
drive from Manchester's modern and easy-to-access airport. Come
check out over 200 liberty-minded individuals plannning on attending
the Porcupine Festival, and see whether or not YOU want to be
friendsand alliesof individuals who do more than just talk
about liberty. Fun for everyone is guaranteed!

If you don't like what's the law (and if you votewhich I
presume you do?), and if you don't like what's happening, that's just
tough shit.

Do I make my point?

People like youwho vote, are more the trouble than people as
myself, simply because you believe that by voting, you can change
things.

Well, every time you lift a finger to a ballot, its you
who's lifting a finger to oppress the rest of us who don't want
to be a part of your corrupt system.

You want government? Well I don't. So, how do you figure that by
voting you have the right to shove your views up my arse?

How do you figure you have the 'right'mr. libertarian?

Just where the hell get off telling me how to live?

You may prognosticate endlessly, and proceed to verbalize your arse
offas you did in your missive, but that doesn't make your point
of view in the least valid, but rather verbose to the point of extreme
boredom. Christ! You must be in love with your own words!

The law is 'the law' because you gave it validity by voting.

Therefore, tariffs are the law, and if you don't like that,
well you have only yourself to blame. Subsidies are the law too,
because you whored yourself out to the 'vote.'

It's all 'legal' because you 'voted' for itby marking a ballot.

You may bitch endlessly about that, and about subsidies too, but that
doesn't change that fact that every time you vote you lend
validity to the whole bloody god-damned process.

You can take your ideas about 'limited government' and shove them
where the sun don't shine.

When you buy an existing company, you assume the company's existing
assets and liabilities. If the company owed a bundle to a
supplier, you can't simply say, "Screw off! Go ask the previous
owners for the money my company owes."

The outfit which bought out Smith & Wesson knew this; it's why
they bought itthe company carried such a load of PR liabilities
that it could be had for pennies on the dollar. Well, folks, just
like the money owed to suppliers, S&W still owes an apology to gun
owners. It is currently in arrears. Likewise, having never abrogated
the offending contract with the government, it is still subject to
its terms, should another administration see fit to enforce them.

In answer to another assertion; no, I don't necessarily hold
companies past actions against them permanently. I even started
patronizing K-Mart after they canned Rosie... until they hoisted the
victim disarmament banner again.

S&W hasn't done that much. If they do intend to show their support
for RKBA by producing a new line of firearms, why can't they be
bothered to simply say they now fully support RKBA? And
apologize. As a marketing tactic, it couldn't hurt, because folks who
would be offended by the position probably aren't buying a lot of
guns from S&W anyway; and it would help, because then they could
regain the business of people like me, to whom it does matter. It's
cheap, easy, and would generate more business; so why don't they
say they've abandoned they anti-RKBA position?

As a corporate entity, S&W has shown no remorse, never abrogated the
offending contract (a victim disarmer's wet dream), never addressed
the issue at all. The new owners, offenders themselves, figured they
could hypnotize the gullible with the glitter of shiny new toys,
causing them to forget their principles... and the offense.

From the feedback I'm seeing, they figured correctly.

Yes, there are companies with which I won't do business, S&W among
them. For that matter, there are states I now avoid due to my
principles. A bummer, but once you give up your principles, what's
left?

Well, it seems that the same "disparities" of education that Wendy
speak ofconcerning her parents, existed as well between my own
parents.

Now, regarding the last comment in her letter: "I still squirm at the
thought of how many successful women now seem to view a large
percentage of decent single men. Namely, as lesser and lower."

No need to "squirm," Wendy!

To hell with them!

If they figure that they are so much better than a prospective mate,
then it's just as well that their genes be flushed from the gene
pool. Certainly we don't need any more arrogant people running
around!

Education among men has always seemed to be the defining line between
who associated with whomat least in polite society.

I wonder: Do women of high education pull that same stunt with those
of lesser achievement?

However, the neighborhood bar never seemed to make any distinctions
in that regard. Smart boys are always making dumb comments, and the
dumb boys always seem to have a witty comeback to stupid remarks
anyway!

Allow me to draw a conclusion here: Beer & ale makes everyone equal!

Well, anyway, it seems that all of this is nothing but a charade,
perpetrated upon all of us by designing men and women who feel that
in order to elevate themselves, they must first step upon the back of
yet others. And, that to succeed, they must appear to be something
they are not: Happy.

In closing, I'll comment with just this: If what you say is true
regarding marriage, then it's no wonder the divorce rate is what it
is for the U.S. : Marriage for money is so stupid. When you marry
money, all you get is spent.

Another government contribution to the artificially high price of
gasoline is additive blending. On his Web site, James P. Hogan
(www.jamesphogan.com)
showed that if you draw a line from
Chicago to St. Louis, the gas stations on that line are required by
the Feds (the EPA, et al.) to have at least 50 different blendings.
Think of the infrustructure (the oil companies have purpose built
distributed blending facilities) and their operational costs.

I can't begin to relate how much I enjoyed reading "To Hell With
Football". Mr. Miles articulated my long-held feelings almost
perfectly, and brought to mind the day when, as a junior, I was asked
to try out for the high school football team. Even at that tender
age, my sense of self-preservation was already highly developed. I
declined to be cannon fodder for the scrimmage line (or whatever the
hell it's called), and consequently never enjoyed the experience of
hobbling around on crutches or developing a limp.

As I say, I can't begin to explain how much I liked "To Hell With
Football". However, that doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to let
another, better and wiser, man sum it up for me. To wit:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the
body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be
the constant companion of your walks."
Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley,
Ed., reissued 1967).

And now, since this month's issue of Small Arms Review still
remains partially un-read, I must be allowed to bid you a civil
adieu.

Since I already had plans for 24th, I wasn't at the meeting. So I
can't comment on the comments made at the meeting.

However, I read the article referenced in the line "The Kaptain's
Log, To Hell With Football", waited a day and read it again.

It a word, it's crap.

Sounds like the rantings of the class nerd who is still envious of
the good-lookin' quarterback. Fortunately, he chooses to express
himself in words rather than bullets like the kids at Columbine, but
the same feelings are there.

He claims, "The ball game sports are vital to the creation of an
obedient, bleating flock of sheep-like "citizens and that is why
every government school promotes them," If they are so vital, then
explain how a country like Germany, which doesn't have team sports in
schools, produced such obedient soldiers for Hitler.

He extols the virtues of individual sports like swimming. I guess
being on a swimming "team" doesn't count. However, Hitler extolled
the individual achievements of his Aryan athletics and the Soviets
extolled the individual achievements of the Communist athletes. Yet,
the "team" is evil.

I suppose all of us who ever played sandlot baseball, backyard
basketball or football are mindless robots of the State since we
played as a team. Never mind the individual skill it takes to play
the game. Gee, and I thought I was just having fun!

Apparently he is also unaware that many homeschooled kids play team
sports either thru community leagues or church leagues. So home
schooling isn't an automatic anti-team effort.

Maybe Libertarians should try a little teamwork. Perhaps we wouldn't
be on the fringe.

"The game of life is a lot like football. You have to tackle your
problems, block your fears, and score your points when you get the
opportunity."
-- Unknown

"In doing your work in the great world, it is a safe plan to follow a
rule I once heard on the football field: Don't flinch, don't fall;
hit the line hard."
Theodore Roosevelt

I suppose Teddy's quote is too violent for the pacifists.

Patrick Henry probably really makes them cringe:

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. ... What is
it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or
peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and
slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23,1775

I hope that more serious issues were discussed at the monthly meeting
... like the fact that pro-gov't forces are trying once again to
change the state's constitution to remove the $50 cap on fines
without a jury and they've succeeded in passing the first hurdle.

> Last but not least, a lawfully-fought war is a fantasy. War is the
> ultimate "lifeboat case", one of the things that happen when the
> rule of law breaks down completely, which is an excellent reason to
> avoid it.

You cannot always and forever avoid war, yet still remain free.
Would you have the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, or the minutemen on the
Lexington Green, fail to shoot at the enemy because their bullets
will end up in their neighbors' houses?

"Lifeboat cases" exist because the ZAP, which is promoted incorrectly
as the basic moral rule, does not apply in all situations. Lifeboat
cases reveal that the the actual moral rule is "be fruitful and
multiply", and that the ZAP is merely a good strategy for following
the moral rule while in civilization.

The amount of due process you are obligated to provide is that amount
which you can physically deliver. If someone makes war on you, you
will not have the military strength to bring each of the enemy
soldiers to trial. That inability to process bad actions through the
normal criminal channels defines it as a war.

By the ZAP, are you announcing your intention to surrender to any
enemy who is willing to tie civilians to the front of their tanks, or
confiscate weapons door-to-door in suburbia as was done in Lexington?

Also, please join the Badnarik Meetup group. If we get enough members
we will be in the top 25 when people do searches and will run across
his name, and help potential volunteers find a way to hook up. It
worked wonders for Howard Dean, and we have a real candidate.